Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Here's the issue, to me, I see with your argument PK/Shoe. You're in the old 2.0 mindset where 6 openings creates such a huge advantage. It's been mitigated a lot.

No more rollover.
No more postseason bonus cash.
No more rolling over of postseason bonus cash.
Preferences were implemented
Recruiting caps were eliminated so now a D- prestige can actually send effort to a 5 star.
The allocation of recruiting cash was changed and now you get some baseline.
Variable/probalistic signing (RNG)
They say prestige impact hasn't changed but maybe this up for debate

If I have 3 openings, I get $14 grand. Whether I'm at Duke or Elon. If I have 6 openings I have $23 grand. This is not double.

I think it could INCREASE battling and actually make it harder for A+ teams. If I'm at New Mexico State, I take my 6 openings and go big on a couple 5 star guys against Duke, whether he has 6 openings or 2. Because I know he has much more to risk if he loses. Can he go 50 HVs too? Sure. But then how will he beat other teams? That's quite a big risk for him to take if he wants to compete in the ACC. I'm in the Big South, I can handle losing that battle and taking an average player as a backup.

I feel like a few people are terrified of A+ prestige schools taking over and I don't see it. They're going to have so many more schools to compete against based upon all the changes I listed above. 6 openings or not, I'm coming for them, even with my D prestige.

Edit- In fact I'm MORE likely to come at them if I think I could outspend them. If I know we both max out, I will likely lose due to prestige.

I know you're going to think this is nit-picking, but it is double the scholarship resources. The 5k base is something everyone gets. Those aren't scholarship resources. The scholarship resource difference between 3 and 6 opening teams is 9k to 18k. That difference is 30+ HVs for a local kid. It isn't insignificant, and it *absolutely will* blow you out of the water, if other factors are comparable.

This isn't primarily about D schools competing with A schools. As I recall, weren't you concerned that you were able to get too good recruits at NMSU? I don't think it's in the interest of the game to increase NMSU's chances of landing a recruit that Duke wants, and I doubt many people actually do. More important is how this proposed change affects recruiting between two comparable teams. And it *undoubtedly* swings it far into the "scholarships are king again" camp.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Here's the issue, to me, I see with your argument PK/Shoe. You're in the old 2.0 mindset where 6 openings creates such a huge advantage. It's been mitigated a lot.

No more rollover.
No more postseason bonus cash.
No more rolling over of postseason bonus cash.
Preferences were implemented
Recruiting caps were eliminated so now a D- prestige can actually send effort to a 5 star.
The allocation of recruiting cash was changed and now you get some baseline.
Variable/probalistic signing (RNG)
They say prestige impact hasn't changed but maybe this up for debate

If I have 3 openings, I get $14 grand. Whether I'm at Duke or Elon. If I have 6 openings I have $23 grand. This is not double.

I think it could INCREASE battling and actually make it harder for A+ teams. If I'm at New Mexico State, I take my 6 openings and go big on a couple 5 star guys against Duke, whether he has 6 openings or 2. Because I know he has much more to risk if he loses. Can he go 50 HVs too? Sure. But then how will he beat other teams? That's quite a big risk for him to take if he wants to compete in the ACC. I'm in the Big South, I can handle losing that battle and taking an average player as a backup.

I feel like a few people are terrified of A+ prestige schools taking over and I don't see it. They're going to have so many more schools to compete against based upon all the changes I listed above. 6 openings or not, I'm coming for them, even with my D prestige.

Edit- In fact I'm MORE likely to come at them if I think I could outspend them. If I know we both max out, I will likely lose due to prestige.

I know you're going to think this is nit-picking, but it is double the scholarship resources. The 5k base is something everyone gets. Those aren't scholarship resources. The scholarship resource difference between 3 and 6 opening teams is 9k to 18k. That difference is 30+ HVs for a local kid. It isn't insignificant, and it *absolutely will* blow you out of the water, if other factors are comparable.

This isn't primarily about D schools competing with A schools. As I recall, weren't you concerned that you were able to get too good recruits at NMSU? I don't think it's in the interest of the game to increase NMSU's chances of landing a recruit that Duke wants, and I doubt many people actually do. More important is how this proposed change affects recruiting between two comparable teams. And it *undoubtedly* swings it far into the "scholarships are king again" camp.

No, that particular concern was regarding D3 teams getting better recruits in 3.0. NMSU can get as many 5 stars as possible! :)
Regarding D1, I've just stated previously that I'm okay if I lose to Duke because it makes sense to me if that happens.

I get what you're saying when you say you have more money. You do, agreed. I just don't think in 3.0 that scholarships are king and won't be king due to all the other changes that I mentioned. Those changes have a huge impact on the dynamics of the game. In 2.0, it wasn't just the scholarships that scared people away, it was the bonus money and rollover money. Not to mention you only needed to spend $1 more to beat someone. Those things are gone. So I totally disagree with you say it undoubtedly makes scholarships king again. Too many other things that balance it out that 2.0 didn't have.

And we've already increased the chance of NMSU beating out Duke. It's already been done. Some people like that. Some people hate it.

Scholarships aren't king in 3.0, at least not nearly to the extent as before. But it's because they're capped. It's not because of the elimination of conference cash, or rollover. Each D1 scholarship is ~10 HVs for a local kid. That is huge, in practice, when you're talking about otherwise equal teams and equal effort/promises. It's going to mean the difference of being in signing range or not in many, many battles. And that will definitely affect how risk averse people are. And as the snowball effect goes, as people are avoiding singular battles with the A+ with 6 scholarships, that team's overall position on *all* recruits he wants becomes unassailable, especially when you can't easily see if he's battling anywhere else. This is what was happening in the first season of beta. Good teams with good preference profiles were getting knocked out of signing range because of openings. And when you see that's the case, it would be moronic to keep trying. Hence fewer battles, hence more elite cherry-picking.

I like the caps I think it makes it a fair go round with every1 who goes all in on a recruit. Benis please start ignoring the same people who every single time says something negative about the forums. The only way to beat them is put legitimate sources in context and definitions with and amount of data like I did yesterday.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Scholarships aren't king in 3.0, at least not nearly to the extent as before. But it's because they're capped. It's not because of the elimination of conference cash, or rollover. Each D1 scholarship is ~10 HVs for a local kid. That is huge, in practice, when you're talking about otherwise equal teams and equal effort/promises. It's going to mean the difference of being in signing range or not in many, many battles. And that will definitely affect how risk averse people are. And as the snowball effect goes, as people are avoiding singular battles with the A+ with 6 scholarships, that team's overall position on *all* recruits he wants becomes unassailable, especially when you can't easily see if he's battling anywhere else. This is what was happening in the first season of beta. Good teams with good preference profiles were getting knocked out of signing range because of openings. And when you see that's the case, it would be moronic to keep trying. Hence fewer battles, hence more elite cherry-picking.

I'm not saying you're making it up but I don't remember any of this happening in the first season of beta or it even being discussed as an issue.

Also, the first season of beta was WAY different than what we have now. Do you remember it? We had actions that were instantaneous, preferences weren't established like they are now, signing preference was hidden, % to unlock actions was hidden, Spud's red light didn't exist, Sim recruiting was HORRIBLE etc etc. Even if we had a good population of active coaches in beta (which we didn't) I really don't think you can draw any conclusions from the first couple seasons of beta and compare them to the game now. It's too different.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 3:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Scholarships aren't king in 3.0, at least not nearly to the extent as before. But it's because they're capped. It's not because of the elimination of conference cash, or rollover. Each D1 scholarship is ~10 HVs for a local kid. That is huge, in practice, when you're talking about otherwise equal teams and equal effort/promises. It's going to mean the difference of being in signing range or not in many, many battles. And that will definitely affect how risk averse people are. And as the snowball effect goes, as people are avoiding singular battles with the A+ with 6 scholarships, that team's overall position on *all* recruits he wants becomes unassailable, especially when you can't easily see if he's battling anywhere else. This is what was happening in the first season of beta. Good teams with good preference profiles were getting knocked out of signing range because of openings. And when you see that's the case, it would be moronic to keep trying. Hence fewer battles, hence more elite cherry-picking.

I'm not saying you're making it up but I don't remember any of this happening in the first season of beta or it even being discussed as an issue.

Also, the first season of beta was WAY different than what we have now. Do you remember it? We had actions that were instantaneous, preferences weren't established like they are now, signing preference was hidden, % to unlock actions was hidden, Spud's red light didn't exist, Sim recruiting was HORRIBLE etc etc. Even if we had a good population of active coaches in beta (which we didn't) I really don't think you can draw any conclusions from the first couple seasons of beta and compare them to the game now. It's too different.

Sure, season 1 beta was no where near even half-baked. There were lots of problems, some you cite, and others. I was critical of Seble for making all the changes he did at once after that first season, and not letting gameplay adjust, but to his credit, those first season changes all worked out pretty well. My BC team was fighting with UConn for a number of recruits that first season - which is as it should be - but he had something like a 5 to 3 advantage in scholarships on me. So I remember well thinking there was no way I would battle him for recruits in a live setting, because he had about 20 more HVs to play with, and so unless HVs just weren't very powerful, this was just a new and more complicated version of the old bidding system. Sure enough, he mostly got what he wanted, knocking me out of signing range on more than one (I had one H-VH upset, but only after it became obvious I had to focus on him and drop others just to get in range on one).

HVs are still pretty powerful, especially chunks of them, and since there is no diminishing return effect (which was my suggestion), having more openings becomes an ever-increasing advantage. And that was specifically one of the unrealistic gameplay oddities 3.0 was supposed to address.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/20/2016 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 3:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Scholarships aren't king in 3.0, at least not nearly to the extent as before. But it's because they're capped. It's not because of the elimination of conference cash, or rollover. Each D1 scholarship is ~10 HVs for a local kid. That is huge, in practice, when you're talking about otherwise equal teams and equal effort/promises. It's going to mean the difference of being in signing range or not in many, many battles. And that will definitely affect how risk averse people are. And as the snowball effect goes, as people are avoiding singular battles with the A+ with 6 scholarships, that team's overall position on *all* recruits he wants becomes unassailable, especially when you can't easily see if he's battling anywhere else. This is what was happening in the first season of beta. Good teams with good preference profiles were getting knocked out of signing range because of openings. And when you see that's the case, it would be moronic to keep trying. Hence fewer battles, hence more elite cherry-picking.

I'm not saying you're making it up but I don't remember any of this happening in the first season of beta or it even being discussed as an issue.

Also, the first season of beta was WAY different than what we have now. Do you remember it? We had actions that were instantaneous, preferences weren't established like they are now, signing preference was hidden, % to unlock actions was hidden, Spud's red light didn't exist, Sim recruiting was HORRIBLE etc etc. Even if we had a good population of active coaches in beta (which we didn't) I really don't think you can draw any conclusions from the first couple seasons of beta and compare them to the game now. It's too different.

Sure, season 1 beta was no where near even half-baked. There were lots of problems, some you cite, and others. I was critical of Seble for making all the changes he did at once after that first season, and not letting gameplay adjust, but to his credit, those first season changes all worked out pretty well. My BC team was fighting with UConn for a number of recruits that first season - which is as it should be - but he had something like a 5 to 3 advantage in scholarships on me. So I remember well thinking there was no way I would battle him for recruits in a live setting, because he had about 20 more HVs to play with, and so unless HVs just weren't very powerful, this was just a new and more complicated version of the old bidding system. Sure enough, he mostly got what he wanted, knocking me out of signing range on more than one (I had one H-VH upset, but only after it became obvious I had to focus on him and drop others just to get in range on one).

HVs are still pretty powerful, especially chunks of them, and since there is no diminishing return effect (which was my suggestion), having more openings becomes an ever-increasing advantage. And that was specifically one of the unrealistic gameplay oddities 3.0 was supposed to address.

Okay so you're basing this assessment off of your 1 situation in the very first season of beta. This probably did happen to you. But when you're describing what happened in beta to mbriese, you're making it seem like this was a rampant issue that was discussed at length and Seble explicitly stated he was changing. I think that's misleading.

But regardless, I get your position. You don't like the bidding. I wouldn't mind a system where you just get a baseline of resources and was the same for 1 opening or 6. I think the baseline money and APs was a good idea. Which reduces the impact of bigger classes in my opinion.

I have 1 opening so I have 8 grand per player.
You have 3 openings so you have about 4.5 grand per player.

Come on, benis. Do you really think the cap was instituted because of one example? It was happening. I can only recount my own experience as an anecdote, I don't have access to other people's examples or memories. I wasn't the only one who noticed the problem, and my problem with it was not the sole basis for the cap.

Couldn't this just lead to "all in" losses? Duke and Elon are chasing the same recruit with the same resources. Duke was a F4 team, Elon was 302. Both go all in but, due to prestige/preferences/etc, Duke has a slight edge. Elon loses and everyone says "Elon should have lost" and nothing is mentioned again. Duke loses, user's head explodes and everyone is all "Total Bullshit. Duke promising starts and minutes should ALWAYS best Elon!!!!" with the obligatory "This game sucks. I quit."

Is this somehow better than what we have?

Actually, if anything I would like to see the number of home visits reduced to 10 or 15. This would open up long distance recruiting even more. As it is the expensive home visits still make it hard to battle with a local school even when the recruit wants to play far from home. And attention points need to be capped or at least reduced significantly in impact after say...300 points. Those changes would actually create more battles.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/20/2016 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Couldn't this just lead to "all in" losses? Duke and Elon are chasing the same recruit with the same resources. Duke was a F4 team, Elon was 302. Both go all in but, due to prestige/preferences/etc, Duke has a slight edge. Elon loses and everyone says "Elon should have lost" and nothing is mentioned again. Duke loses, user's head explodes and everyone is all "Total Bullshit. Duke promising starts and minutes should ALWAYS best Elon!!!!" with the obligatory "This game sucks. I quit."

Is this somehow better than what we have?

Of all people, I thought you would like this plan. It may cause more complaints like that on all-ins, but that'd just be from whiners that didn't plan well. It adds an extra strategic element that isn't there when going "all in" on a guy means 20% of your budget.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/20/2016 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Couldn't this just lead to "all in" losses? Duke and Elon are chasing the same recruit with the same resources. Duke was a F4 team, Elon was 302. Both go all in but, due to prestige/preferences/etc, Duke has a slight edge. Elon loses and everyone says "Elon should have lost" and nothing is mentioned again. Duke loses, user's head explodes and everyone is all "Total Bullshit. Duke promising starts and minutes should ALWAYS best Elon!!!!" with the obligatory "This game sucks. I quit."

Is this somehow better than what we have?

You and spud have been telling people learn to budget when they have complaints about the current scouting system, but now you want hand holding for the recruiting budget?

Posted by mbriese on 12/20/2016 5:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/20/2016 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Couldn't this just lead to "all in" losses? Duke and Elon are chasing the same recruit with the same resources. Duke was a F4 team, Elon was 302. Both go all in but, due to prestige/preferences/etc, Duke has a slight edge. Elon loses and everyone says "Elon should have lost" and nothing is mentioned again. Duke loses, user's head explodes and everyone is all "Total Bullshit. Duke promising starts and minutes should ALWAYS best Elon!!!!" with the obligatory "This game sucks. I quit."

Is this somehow better than what we have?

Of all people, I thought you would like this plan. It may cause more complaints like that on all-ins, but that'd just be from whiners that didn't plan well. It adds an extra strategic element that isn't there when going "all in" on a guy means 20% of your budget.

I don't have a set opinion on it. I'm just not sure it eliminates a problem. In fact, it might make it worse.

Duke misses on a player, they drop from F4 to S16. Elon misses and they go from 302 to 343. Duke loses they're ****** because they're not a top 4 team. Elon misses and they're ****** because they're the worst team in D1.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Come on, benis. Do you really think the cap was instituted because of one example? It was happening. I can only recount my own experience as an anecdote, I don't have access to other people's examples or memories. I wasn't the only one who noticed the problem, and my problem with it was not the sole basis for the cap.

All I'm saying is - I don't remember hearing much in beta about capping the HVs as a good idea because of situations like yours. I remember when Seble announced the change he mentioned that he did it because "it wasn't realistic" to have 80 Home Visits. I also remember that were more people disliking the cap at the time. I was actually indifferent to it at the time so I didn't really have an opinion either way.

At the end of the day, the most important thing to consider for a potential change like this is how it affects a battle between comparable teams. Currently, a singular battle does not hinge on how many scholarships a team has. If two relatively equal teams put in relatively the same effort and make relatively the same amount of promises, they will be very close to 50/50. That's how it should be, IMO. The number of scholarships a team has should be meaningless to a recruit, when both teams have made the same promises. Having more scholarships matters in terms of how many recruits a team can max on, and that's also as it should be.

Uncapping visits means a team with more scholarships will have an advantage with the recruit, to the tune of ~10 HVs per scholarship. That will absolutely tilt the scales, and in some cases have potential to knock a team out of signing range. That should never happen. It did happen in beta, and it will be a serious gameplay problem in live worlds.